This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

With the situation in Iraq unfolding do you believe that the Iraq War was worth it?

21 mostly Saudis blew up a few buildings and killed a few thousand Americans on our soil. We went after Saddam in Iraq to get Bin Laden, who we believed was probably in Pakistan or possibly Afghanistan, claiming that we were really looking for WMD's, which had been destroyed or moved, or never existed. We decided that we would establish a democratic all inclusive government in an area where the people had been fighting for hundreds of years, and accomplish it in a couple of years.

Re: Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

Originally Posted by CRUE CAB

Find me quotes from Hitler and or Mussolini about destroying the US and the west on almost daily basis. How many times did they burn American flags?
How many hits inside our borders did they get killing thousands?

Using your logic, you're saying we should invade North Korea and Iran too, they do the same thing. Boy, you sure do like wars.

Re: Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

Originally Posted by cpwill

No. The facts presented were what we knew at the time. Some of which (for example, the usage of mobile production platforms) turned out to be incorrect. Some of that was the result of tainted reporting, and some of it was the result of a successful MILDEC campaign by Saddam to convince the world (well, the Iranians) that he still had a production and storage capacity. The assessments given were problematic because they were built in part off of tainted reporting streams (such as described), and were over zealous in their levels of confidence. Even today it is not possible to utilize just the data that was available in the winter of 2002 and come to the conclusion that Saddam had given up and destroyed his WMD program - all you can justify is reducing the confidence levels.

At that dandy. "They were facts at the time" but now they are just a bunch of BS. In fact much of the reporting done at the time especially by Hans Blix was reported before the war...

Re: Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

I think this FOX News reporter about said it all.

"MEGYN KELLY to DICK CHENEY: In your op-ed, you write as follows: 'Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.' But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well, sir. You said there were no doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes back in 2005. And you said after our intervention, extremists would have to "rethink their strategy of jihad." Now with almost a trillion dollars spent there with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many? "

Re: Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

At that dandy. "They were facts at the time" but now they are just a bunch of BS. In fact much of the reporting done at the time especially by Hans Blix was reported before the war...

I'm not sure that last sentence says what you intended it to say.

And yes, they were the facts that we had at the time. Would you prefer that your policy makers make decisions off of things other than the facts available to them? What would you replace it with? FDR used to set the price of gold around what numbers were traditionally lucky, so I suppose the "I feel lucky" option has a precedent.

Re: Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

Originally Posted by grip

I think this FOX News reporter about said it all.

"MEGYN KELLY to DICK CHENEY: In your op-ed, you write as follows: 'Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.' But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well, sir. You said there were no doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes back in 2005. And you said after our intervention, extremists would have to "rethink their strategy of jihad." Now with almost a trillion dollars spent there with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many? "

Re: Was the Iraq War "Worth it"

Originally Posted by cpwill

I'm not sure that last sentence says what you intended it to say.

And yes, they were the facts that we had at the time. Would you prefer that your policy makers make decisions off of things other than the facts available to them? What would you replace it with? FDR used to set the price of gold around what numbers were traditionally lucky, so I suppose the "I feel lucky" option has a precedent.

You keep saying those were the facts we had? I think you need to learn what the meaning of a fact is.

Definition- fact

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

All we had was misinformation that was at best, guess work.

Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."